BillWiskins

This is a treat - certainly something that should be saved somewhere for posterity. The difference is staggering - no map, no orbital information at all, no symmetry tool, not even a MECO... I'm quite proud of my first attempt - I'm pretty sure I've attained an orbit, though I might have overdone it somewhat. My little ship is at 385,000m and still just about climbing. I was aiming to shut off the engines and coast to a nice 100,000 AP....

Aye, quite right sir. As I said - there are clearly control issues which need sorting. I'd just hate to get a new version one day and find that massive vehicles were able to turn and handle as easily as a tiny one. I realise that that is an oversimplification and not what you were getting at, really. Still - I hope that any revisions made still retain the feeling of 'heaviness' for larger craft. It should still be the case that if you design a massive vehicle, you should be prepared for it to feel like steering a glacier (and be required to adjust relevant design aspects accordingly).

Hi there. Assuming that was aimed at my original issue, and not at Johno's - first thanks for the tip. However I have been unable to locate the Flash player - a search in the search box as described reveals nothing, and I haven't been able to locate it anywhere else. I'm using Windows 7.

In my opinion (bearing in mind that the first image I linked to represents pretty much the largest craft I use on a regular basis) the fact that the SAS and ASAS can't be used for adjustments as easily as they can on the smaller sized parts adds to the experience. Clearly certain issues are inconvenient and those need to be sorted, like the wallowing that occurs for certain vehicles. But in my mind, the difficulty in rotation and control just equates to one of the challenges of piloting a much heavier object. I have encountered this with the aforementioned craft - winglets allow it to turn easier when within atmosphere, and when in orbit, if I need to manoeuvre the thing before the bulk of it is staged away, then the gimballed engines on the lowest possible throttle setting give me enough leverage to get it pointed where I want. Maybe I'm just looking on the bright side a bit too much, but I wouldn't let it get in the way of using the full repertoire of parts.

The engines on that craft are the new, larger landing engines. No issues at all with them. I have also been using a very similar configuration based on the one man command pod (central tanks (in this case RCS), three radial half-size tanks plus landing engines). Image here. Two of the engines are missing there due to a slight landing mishap, but I've never experienced any random detaching or other odd behaviour.

I can vouch for outlying SAS. My (admittedly smaller) design (http://i.imgur.com/Q7Wsr.jpg) has them on the side-mounted tanks. Still turns fairly slowly, but as you say, in orbit that's not a problem. It is stable, though.

Cleared cookies, no dice. Thanks for the advice folks, moving on to the next thing... ...none of which seems to have worked. Thanks for the help, though.

With all of the greatest respect, I disagree! Knowing which button does what is, of course, highly recommended and not at all what I am disagreeing with. But KSP is a game which, at present, says to the user: "Here is a heap of rocket bits. There's the Mun. Have at it." It does not say "Here is a heap of rocket bits. Now go away and study orbital calculations, and don't come back until you can calculate delta-v for a stage with your head in a bowl of soup." In what I should point out is my very humble opinion, the fun to be had in KSP lies in all those 'hours doing everything wrong' that you mention. Those aren't wasted hours. That's experimentation, trial and error, "I wonder if this will work with an SRB attached to-oh. Oh dear." It's hilarious malfunctions and thoroughly deserved fiery deaths. Sure, you could download KSP, install it and then spend a week or two watching tutorials on Hohmann transfers and Munar landing. Then you could load up the game and do everything right first time. But then what? Do it again? The first time I attained a stable orbit I felt a grand sense of achievement (funny how silly little games, the playing of which is pretty much the opposite of achieving anything, can do that). I didn't feel like that because I had utilized any math - I hadn't. I had just thrown together a bunch of rocket parts, the design informed only by the failures of those that had gone before it. It took me ages, but by trying something, seeing how it failed, and adjusting the design, it was done. Does a knowledge of the proper methods and calculations involved in orbital movement make the game easier? I should imagine so. Do I have a problem with using that sort of knowledge? Heavens, no. I only wish I was smart enough to know all of that stuff. But you don't need it and you certainly shouldn't bypass the 'let's see what happens if I...' stage. Oh - I'm sorry for the rant, and for the lack of adherence to the topic. Just something I felt the need to respond to. Carry on!

...so I'm hoping that one or two of you can help a blundering moron such as myself. Look at me. I can't even spell 'mighty' rightly. It's nothing to get up about, really - just a niggling little thing that I can't seem to find a solution for. It is YouTube. The popular internet video website. You should try it sometime - they have videos there. But the thing is, and this is what the thing is: any video I watch there seems to have its audio track delayed by a half a second or so. This is incredibly frustrating - more so because it didn't used to happen. I'm using an almost new laptop of moderate to poor specification, but this time last week everything was synced beautifully. I have tried checking (and un-checking) the 'enable hardware acceleration' box in the Flash options. I use Chrome, which automatically keeps my version of Flash fresh. I am at a loss. Any theories, solutions, ideas, musings, insane ramblings of the sleep deprived, etc. are greatly welcomed. With many of the thanks, Bill.

Mr Vager is quite right. To make sure you\'re firing the engines in exactly the right direction, align the yellow circle with the cross through it (the retrograde marker) with the middle of the navigation ball at the bottom of your screen.

I concur with previous statements - and might I say, lovely choice of music there.

RCS will help with that. Admittedly, less so with the new heavy parts, but if you use lots of thruster blocks to make it effective, it is a lot easier to fire directional RCS than it is to pitch over and use the main engine (I\'m assuming because you said \'bounce\' rather than \'violently explode\' that you don\'t have hundreds and hundreds of m/s to kill).

I\'d like to see anyone get to the Mun without being in some kind of Kerbin orbit... I\'m just joking. Calm down! That there is a useful guide, Vanamonde. I shall use it in the future, should I ever be in a rush to get to a moon and not have the time for a lazy old game of \'slightly different orbit catch-up\'.

Aldly decides to sit this one out, based on the fact that the last mission ended like this:

Heaviness does mean some sluggish turning, but this will get you to the Mun (or Minmus, if you\'re that way inclined*) with fuel for pratting about once you\'re there. * This is a funny joke, because Minmus has an inclined orbit, and I used the word \'inclined\' in a different way, which is funny, so laugh.

That would be the one. Many sincere thanking-yous, sir!

\'Attachments and other options\', just below the text field when you reply.

Define \'tips over\'. Also, you could check the flight report (F3?) to see if anything failed. Perhaps attach a .craft file for the experts to fiddle with - the picture looks fine to me, but it\'s hard to tell without giving it a spin.

Precisely! In all honesty, if it weren\'t for landings upon the Mun and the other thing, I\'d probably not have noticed yet. It does considerably increase the difficulty of a perfect touchdown. I have found that the engines do cast additional light upon the surface, though, so that gives some warning. Maybe as much as two to three meters! I fear not. No amount of crazed zooming will tempt those silly shadows from wherever they hide. Also tried: running around parked landers with Aldly Kerman to see if a different perspective helps. It doesn\'t. Also also tried: looking the other way and then turning Aldly around really quickly, just in case the shadows were playing tricks. Seems not. Now that you mention it, I am facing the bathroom mirror right now and I can see no reflection at all. Then again, there are two walls between myself and it, so let\'s not get too excited. In game, though, I have not found any stock mirrors. Perhaps there is a mod?

Ah, no offence was taken my good man. I have certainly landed on the dark side of the Mun unintentionally in the past, but I can assure you that on each occasion I was able to deduce the cause of all the darkness through wit and cunning. This is not, however, the cause of my absent shadows. I have now tested many times on each of the celestial bodies that we are blessed with, and not a bit of light was prevented from reaching its destination by any of my machines or men. I am starting to worry that I might have become some kind of virtual mythological creature. I did also reset the resolution to the default as you suggested, Mr Visitor. No effect. Also tried: removing the quicksave and persistent files to give myself a fresh scene. I am somewhat stumped...

Good morning ladies and gentlemen. I am pleased to report that I\'m having a splendid time pratting about with KSP 0.16. What a marvelous thing it is, for certain. However I am experiencing an issue, in that I no longer seem to be able to cast shadows. Now, I am using KSP on a newer and better laptop machine now, and I switched just before the update was released. I have changed nothing in the settings except the resolution - it now runs in 1280x600, in order to provide me with the feeling of luxury associated with widescreen entertainment. I considered posting it as a bug, but I have seen other folks posting screenshots and they all seem to be enjoying lovely shadows (as I was, long ago). The only shadows that are absent are those cast by the vehicles and the kerbals - the scenery still shades itself nicely and all of that. Any ideas? My profuse thanks for any clues you may be able to provide.

You should look at the nav-ball, the instrument in the bottom centre of your screen. The controls are always relative to that. Also, it shows you your prograde and retrograde headings (yellow circle thing and yellow circle thing with cross, respectively).

Perhaps there are too many control surfaces? I notice you have both canards and elevators. I always assumed it was in most cases a one or the other type situation (can\'t think of any real aircraft that use both - not that I\'m an expert). I do know that the canards in KSP do enable some slightly hyper manoeuvrability which is very difficult to control, even in precision mode. I\'ve even played around with leaving off ailerons - the command modules generate enough rotation to roll even fairly large planes, and I\'ve found it more controllable in a lot of cases. I\'m just guessing here, really - I\'m away from my KSP enabled laptop, Anyway, someone who knows what they are talking about will be along shortly

Well, I see what you mean. I tried moving the front set of wings back as far as possible until they almost made contact with the engines, and with precision mode [capslock] on, it flies a lot better.

Fair point - I\'m old, and set in my ways...